TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness of manufacturing sponge iron as well as its trading and commission agent. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 30.09.2008 declaring total income at 'nil'. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 10.12.2010, the total income as declared by the assessee in the return of income at 'nil' was accepted by the Assessing Officer. According to the ld. CIT, the said order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He, therefore, issued a notice under section 263 pointing out such errors to the assessee as under:- "Whereas assessment for the Assessment Year 2008-09 was completed on 10.12.2010 u/s 143(3) of the I. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... depredation of Rs. 4,04,422/- [Rs.1,12,898 + Rs. 2,91,524/-] only was allowable. Thus the excess depredation of Rs. 1,50,74,766/- was allowed which needed to be revised. In view of the above, it has caused the order passed by the AO on 10.12.2010 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. I, therefore, propose to revise the order on the above issue. Therefore, please show-cause why the order will not be revised u/s.263 of the I. T. Act, '61. You are therefore requested to appear before the undersigned either personally or through your A.R. on 22/03/2013 at 3:00 p.m. failing which your order will be passed as per merit of the case without giving you further opportunity of being heard." 3. In response to the not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 263 and pointed out that no finding whatsoever has been given by the ld. CIT on the explanation offered by the assessee on merit and he finally revised the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that proper and sufficient enquiry was not conducted by the assessee on the issues raised in the notice issue under section 263. He contended that this approach adopted by the ld. CIT is not permissible in law, especially when he has not even pointed out as to what exactly is the further enquiry that the Assessing Officer was expected to do. He contended that the order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263, therefore, is not sustainable as he has not given specifically any finding about the errors in the assessment order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ission made by the assessee and held the order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground that proper and sufficient enquiry on the issues raised by him in the notice issued under section 263 was not conducted by the assessee. He even did not point out as to how the enquiry made by the Assessing Officer was not sufficient and proper and even failed to point out as to what further enquiry the Assessing Officer was expected to do on the relevant issues. In the case of Leisure Wear Exports Limited (supra) cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee, there was nothing in the revisional order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 as to how the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous....